Live data from Hacker News

Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

nytimes.com

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#101

I'm not sure what the future is going to look like, but it feels strange already and companies seizing on that don't care about safety. People seem afraid to approach people, so we get Tinder. But hey, there's still a chance of rejection there, so let's just get rid of the whole human element and make fantasy AI bots, who needs people. What will these people grow into? It seems a rather crisis for the population of a…

The future for this is going to be automated pig butchering scams at scale with relationship bots addicting people and talking them into paying them.

This will be peppered with some suicides and other breakdowns when vulnerable people are pushed over the edge after bonding with a chat bot designed to be addictive.

The key here as with “social” media is: designed to be addictive. The builders know what they are doing. I’m sure hours spent on the app is a KPI.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#102
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He expressed being scared, wanting her affection and missing her. She replies, 'I miss you too,' and she says, 'Please come home to me.' He says, 'What if I told you I could come home right now?' and her response was, 'Please do my sweet king.'"

I doubt the LLM even knows it is an LLM in the first place. It is likely prompted to behave as if it is the actual character, and since this roleplay has romantic elements the character acts as if she shares a home with the user

Of course it doesn’t. It’s just a text predictor. It doesn’t “know” anything in the sentient sense.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#103
post #31

So, a 14 year old having access unsupervised to a chat bot is the problem, but the fact he had access to a gun to shoot himself was halfway through the article and described as his five year old brother "hearing the gunshot". "Man bites dog" as Terry Pratchett put it in "Times". And to explain to more literal folk here... A 14 year old having access to a gun is FUCKING INSANE

Context is everything.

A typical 14 year old city boy? Yes.

A 14 year old raised in the country who was taught gun safety as part of learning how to hunt at 10? He's already way ahead of most adults with access to a gun.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#104
post #31

So, a 14 year old having access unsupervised to a chat bot is the problem, but the fact he had access to a gun to shoot himself was halfway through the article and described as his five year old brother "hearing the gunshot". "Man bites dog" as Terry Pratchett put it in "Times". And to explain to more literal folk here... A 14 year old having access to a gun is FUCKING INSANE

The gun is why you’re hearing about this. It meant he succeeded. If he’d eaten a bunch of his dad’s left over pain killers and gone to the hospital it may not have made the national news.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#105
post #31

So, a 14 year old having access unsupervised to a chat bot is the problem, but the fact he had access to a gun to shoot himself was halfway through the article and described as his five year old brother "hearing the gunshot". "Man bites dog" as Terry Pratchett put it in "Times". And to explain to more literal folk here... A 14 year old having access to a gun is FUCKING INSANE

Context is everything. A typical 14 year old city boy? Yes. A 14 year old raised in the country who was taught gun safety as part of learning how to hunt at 10? He's already way ahead of most adults with access to a gun.

He was way ahead. Q.E.D. as per the article.

What was absent, apparently, was gun safes and appropriate supervision.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#106
post #31

So, a 14 year old having access unsupervised to a chat bot is the problem, but the fact he had access to a gun to shoot himself was halfway through the article and described as his five year old brother "hearing the gunshot". "Man bites dog" as Terry Pratchett put it in "Times". And to explain to more literal folk here... A 14 year old having access to a gun is FUCKING INSANE

Context is everything. A typical 14 year old city boy? Yes. A 14 year old raised in the country who was taught gun safety as part of learning how to hunt at 10? He's already way ahead of most adults with access to a gun.

Suicide by hunting rifles doesn’t sound very easy, I bet this was a handgun instead.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#107

To those talking about the gun: The gun is almost completely irrelevant, because if you are intent on killing yourself there are many accessible options. For example, almost anyone can kill themselves (including gun-less 14 year olds) by jumping off a tall building. I understand that people care about gun violence, and that this detail seems highly salient to them, but to focus on it here, completely misses the point…

Guns simply make suicide easy. You’d be surprised how much grit/nerve it takes to jump off a bridge or building, it is definitely much harder than pulling a trigger. Stabbing yourself to death also takes a lot of grit/nerve. Guns are pretty easy and harder to screw up.

But you have countries like Korea with a high suicide rate and low access to firearms, so it’s obviously possible to have suicide without guns. But we don’t know if the problem would be much worse if South Koreans had easier access to firearms, or if the American problem is amplified by easy firearm access.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#108
post #76

[flagged]

You're presuming that it was AI which killed the kid, rather than some kind of emotional or social condition.

It's so easy to call for a ban on a thing that you see as bad when it's an emotional subject, and particularly when there are, say, incentivized evangelists who constantly reinforce the idea to attack the symptom when you can't get at the disease itself.

Which can work in some cases. There aren't a lot of effective medications for a lot of mental illnesses, and investments in research of ones which will work better is a huge expense with disincentives for success. If you "cure" or provide a drug with a higher duration of efficacy for cheaper with fewer side effects, what do you get? Well, you spent hundreds of millions figuring out how to sell 1 pill instead of 10.

The same disincentives exist for the idea of forcing doctors to insist on therapy as a treatment. If it works longer term by addressing roots of issue (if), the doc isn't getting a recurring patient every month to sign off on prescriptions, and the drug company's not getting that prescription.

Changing health and social systems isn't going to get a politician much credit. The effects of improvement are hard to quantify. The choices are HARD, and it takes years to see whether the change was good or bad.

So there's resistance to changing health and social systems.

It's a lot easier to DEMAND our politicians do something, anything, even if it's clearly a bad idea. We want to know they're at least trying.

Something violent happens, blame video games because they show violent things. It's easy and simple. Very catchy to the common man. An easy way to virtue signal that you want something done without having to actually dive in and understand all of the factors around why that bad thing just happened. You can put your energy into something simple and then go about your day.

Then you don't have to consider the impacts of rising wealth inequality, lack of social programs to detect and intervene, the quality and capacity of schools to foster healthy social environments for children, the availability and access to mental health resources, availability and access to automatic rifles, or hell, even the way your own kid has learned to treat other children and which part of your parenting processes contribute to that.

It's sooo much easier to pick a thing and cry "Boycott that! Legislate that!" instead.

And now we, collectively as a society, are doing the same with AI. And special interest groups are fanning the flames, to build moats around profit centers.

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#109
post #26

The NYT article [0] gives only one line to perhaps the most important and tragic fact about this suicide: the teenager had access to his father’s gun. If the gun was properly secured it is very likely he would still be alive [1]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/technology/characterai-la... [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/youth...

What an insanely ridiculous take. If someone wanted to kill themselves, the family medicine cabinet offers plenty of easy options. Please do not derail this serious and needed discussion unto your pet topic. This has nothing to do with guns.

You don’t think opportunity plays a role here?

Let me ask you this. If you leave your wallet filled to the brim with cash on a park bench somewhere, do you think the likelyhood increases that it will get stolen, compared to if it’s in your pocket?

Re: Can A.I. be blamed for a teen's suicide?

#110
I read the chat, and a few things stand out that AI should handle better, regardless of context. If a word like suicide is mentioned, it should immediately drop any roleplay or other activities. It's similar to how, in India, mentioning 'bomb' in an airport or plane leads to being questioned by authorities.

Also, it's alarming how easily a 14-year-old can access a gun.

Post reply on HN